Aren’t all pan-Blue considered foreign on Taiwan?[/quote]
Haha, sometimes I think you’re considered foreign wherever you go, AC.
Anyway to everyone else: what stops this stuff from happening in the United States? Why aren’t these measures introduced into Taiwan?
Furthermore, why doesn’t the GIO wait until next year to investigate (when TVBS renews)? OH! because someone asked the GIO to investigate. On the other hand, its not uncommon for many Taiwanese to believe that the CCP owns a good chunk of the media in Taiwan, indirectly. Look at the US, has anyone seen
Sino TV? Thats practically a propoganda channel for the PRC!
It doesn’t, remember the IBM buyout and the attempted Unocol buyout, both went through intense congressional review.[/quote]
Yes, thanks for bringing up the obvious, you forgot my example about SinoTV being basically a CCP propoganda tool in the US. They even mispronounce ‘Bush’ as ‘Dishonest’. Anyway there are US laws against selling dual-use technologies to China, although it isn’t very effective, it helps somewhat. Also see: World Journal, the office in the US is packed with people from China. Things have changed.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]
:bravo: hehehe the question everyone has about Taiwan. You just don’t understand Taiwanese culture.[/quote]
Haha for a person seems to not believe that Taiwan even has a culture (except 100% totally Chinese)… …you’re beginning to fold up into yourself in a Xinhua style blackhole of hypocritical thinking.
[quote]http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/20041227/VII.htm
“The main responsibility of China’s defense-related science, technology and industry
is to … It gives priority to the development of dual-purpose high-tech …”[/quote] 216.26.163.62/2005/ea_china_03_15.html
And many more on Google.
The fact that China is the world’s #1 dual-use technologies proliferator makes it dangerous. UN officials were surprised to see Libyan nuclear documents written in Simplified Chinese.
Thanks for basically agreeing with me. But with millions coming in from the KMT, how could the greedy higher-ups from the paper not turn from Pan-Green to Pan-Blue?
Please provide some solid evidence. PC technology is based on open architecture and PRC does a majority of the manufacturing. The PC tool like a hammer. A hammer could be used to build a nuclear device as well. So in your opinion if a PRC firm bought out Maytag, it would have to go through an oversight committee to ensure no dual application could be used.
Secondly, can you provide any evidence the World Journal was ever a pan-Green paper? Can you even read the World Journal?
Back on point in a free-market companies will be bought and sold. If all “foreign” investors are screened for political correctness of the local administration, doesn’t that contradict how a free market is suppose to operate.
Please provide some solid evidence. PC technology is based on open architecture and PRC does a majority of the manufacturing. The PC tool like a hammer. A hammer could be used to build a nuclear device as well. So in your opinion if a PRC firm bought out Maytag, it would have to go through an oversight committee to ensure no dual application could be used.
Secondly, can you provide any evidence the World Journal was ever a pan-Green paper? Can you even read the World Journal?
Back on point in a free-market companies will be bought and sold. If all “foreign” investors are screened for political correctness of the local administration, doesn’t that contradict how a free market is suppose to operate.[/quote]
Did you read any of the articles I posted on dual use technologies? Did you? Probably not.
No you’re extreme again, hammers are not on anyone’s list as dual use technologies. You little Joker you, haha. Again read the articles and stop taking things wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy outer space.
[quote=“BlueGreen”]Wikipedia is not a valid source. Anyone can create an article or edit existing articles by adding spin that suits their views :loco:[/quote]BlueGreen -
:bravo: :bravo: Something everyone should remember when they use it, or see it used, as a sole source reference :bravo: :bravo:
Just dropped in for my first visit, and look forward to contributing my two cents on some of these related topics over time.
Glad to say this issue has finally blown over, with plenty of embarassed faces over in the DPP camp. Everyone from CSB down (including everyone’s new biao-ge, DPP legislator Cai Qifang) has reluctantly admitted that there were no legal grounds that could possibly justify a closure of TVBS.
On a couple of other related notes…
I stumbled across shrimp’s xanga ring, and followed its links here. I must say, I’m baffled that someone who cares so passionately about the issue can be so ignorant about basic facts. For starters, I’m not sure what the Wikipedia entry is supposed to indicate, but it doesn’t remotely suggest that the World Journal ever had a “pan-green” tint.
The other poster is absolutely right: the World Journal (as well as most “overseas Chinese” institutions) have always been tightly tied to the KMT as a party, and to Chinese nationalism as an ideology. We’ve seen changes over the past 15 years as the definition of Chinese nationalism has shifted its center of gravity from Taipei to Beijing… but the institution remains the same.
Tainan Cowboy, TVBS’s “2100 everybody speaks” doesn’t have a studio audience.
[quote=“cctang”]TVBS’s “2100 everybody speaks” doesn’t
have a studio audience.[/quote]
They do have a live audience when they travel outside the studio, though. Back when I was a TVBS cameraman, we did a show out on Jinmen that had a huge crowd, and they took questions from the audience as well. It was very interesting.
[quote=“cctang”]- Tainan Cowboy, TVBS’s “2100 everybody speaks” doesn’t have a studio audience.[/quote]cctang -
Thanks for the heads-up. I wonder what show it is that my wife watches nightly.
Moderator named, I believe, Mr. Lee(Li?), usually 2 -3 panelists and an audience.
Comes on around 2100 on my cable channel 56.
Lively call-ins also.
Just dropped in for my first visit, and look forward to contributing my two cents on some of these related topics over time.
Glad to say this issue has finally blown over, with plenty of embarassed faces over in the DPP camp. Everyone from CSB down (including everyone’s new biao-ge, DPP legislator Cai Qifang) has reluctantly admitted that there were no legal grounds that could possibly justify a closure of TVBS.
On a couple of other related notes…
I stumbled across shrimp’s xanga ring, and followed its links here. I must say, I’m baffled that someone who cares so passionately about the issue can be so ignorant about basic facts. For starters, I’m not sure what the Wikipedia entry is supposed to indicate, but it doesn’t remotely suggest that the World Journal ever had a “pan-green” tint.
The other poster is absolutely right: the World Journal (as well as most “overseas Chinese” institutions) have always been tightly tied to the KMT as a party, and to Chinese nationalism as an ideology. We’ve seen changes over the past 15 years as the definition of Chinese nationalism has shifted its center of gravity from Taipei to Beijing… but the institution remains the same.
Tainan Cowboy, TVBS’s “2100 everybody speaks” doesn’t have a studio audience.[/quote]
I would disagree, in the past World Journal has been critical of the KMT as well as Beijing, at least its US division circa 1988. Now its the total opposite. Granted its difficult to find the history of World Journal via search engines because it is commonly confused with the phrase Journal of the World. As a result I had no choice but to resort to Wikipedia which at least repeats the anti-Beijing part. Anyway my apologies for this one.
Just dropped in for my first visit, and look forward to contributing my two cents on some of these related topics over time.
Glad to say this issue has finally blown over, with plenty of embarassed faces over in the DPP camp. Everyone from CSB down (including everyone’s new biao-ge, DPP legislator Cai Qifang) has reluctantly admitted that there were no legal grounds that could possibly justify a closure of TVBS.
On a couple of other related notes…
I stumbled across shrimp’s xanga ring, and followed its links here. I must say, I’m baffled that someone who cares so passionately about the issue can be so ignorant about basic facts. For starters, I’m not sure what the Wikipedia entry is supposed to indicate, but it doesn’t remotely suggest that the World Journal ever had a “pan-green” tint.
The other poster is absolutely right: the World Journal (as well as most “overseas Chinese” institutions) have always been tightly tied to the KMT as a party, and to Chinese nationalism as an ideology. We’ve seen changes over the past 15 years as the definition of Chinese nationalism has shifted its center of gravity from Taipei to Beijing… but the institution remains the same.
Tainan Cowboy, TVBS’s “2100 everybody speaks” doesn’t have a studio audience.[/quote]
I would disagree, in the past World Journal has been critical of the KMT as well as Beijing, at least its US division circa 1988. Now its the total opposite. Granted its difficult to find the history of World Journal via search engines because it is commonly confused with the phrase Journal of the World. As a result I had no choice but to resort to Wikipedia which at least reports the anti-Beijing part. Anyway my apologies for this one.
In 1988 the only people you could critise in ROC gov’t was the KMT. It would be very difficult to be critical of party that held no significant offices at the time.
As for the anti-Beijing stance, the paper was funded by the ROC, it not going to hold a pro-Beijing stance during the middle of the Cold War.
Being critical of the KMT or Beijing doesn’t make it a pan Green newspaper.
The World Journal has never supported the views of Taiwan Independence. It has a Sino-centric view of Chinese nationalism.
For the most part the World Journal just translates various wires. It has reporters covering local events in various overseas markets.
The final evidence of the World Journal being a Sino-centric, is why do you think the New York City market has a Chinese language paper devoted to TI? The NYC market cannot support 2 Chinese language papers devoted to TI.
